I always found this strange. Using game logic, nations are fools for not going full war economy and having armies millions strong standing around for years…even though in real life and in this time period, there are massive costs for dedicating so much of your economy to wartime production and employing so much of your population to being a standing army…which is why, generally speaking, the nations of the world dont do it.
Now, I know part of it is that this is specifially a world war 2 game, and your production is basically leading up to this point…understood, were not looking at the long term consequences of economic policies.
But even then, I find it strange that civilian economy is just a straight debuff compared to war economy, even for building civilian factories or infrastructure. Or that there are 0 costs (outside of the political points upfront) to switch to a higher mobilization.
Likewise, you would think that standing armies would have some sort of cost…maybe simulated through small amounts of attrition. As is, it makes it look like theres no reason not to have millions of fully trained troops just standing around for years. In game theres no reason at all to demobilize at the conclusion of a war, even if your game goes on for like a decade. Which is of course contrary to real life.
I also think the costs associated with conscription laws are not nearly high enough. Volunteer Only is mostly fine not having negatives, but extensive conscription only adding on 10% training time seems so inconsequential. If nothing else youd think this would cost a sizable chunk of stability by having such widespread drafts into the army. I know this is locked behind war support but even then thats a pretty massive change in society.
Now, I know part of it is that this is specifially a world war 2 game, and your production is basically leading up to this point…understood, were not looking at the long term consequences of economic policies.
But even then, I find it strange that civilian economy is just a straight debuff compared to war economy, even for building civilian factories or infrastructure. Or that there are 0 costs (outside of the political points upfront) to switch to a higher mobilization.
Likewise, you would think that standing armies would have some sort of cost…maybe simulated through small amounts of attrition. As is, it makes it look like theres no reason not to have millions of fully trained troops just standing around for years. In game theres no reason at all to demobilize at the conclusion of a war, even if your game goes on for like a decade. Which is of course contrary to real life.
I also think the costs associated with conscription laws are not nearly high enough. Volunteer Only is mostly fine not having negatives, but extensive conscription only adding on 10% training time seems so inconsequential. If nothing else youd think this would cost a sizable chunk of stability by having such widespread drafts into the army. I know this is locked behind war support but even then thats a pretty massive change in society.
- 27
- 6
- 4
